"There is such a high demand for adoption in this country. Why have an abortion when you could have the child and put them up for adoption?" -- Pro-Life
We're going to move beyond the obvious flaws in this statement and cover the actual process of adoption. It should be noted before I even begin this article that I am not affiliated with a Pro-Life or Pro-Choice standing. I am politically neutral of this debate, but this article serves as a rebuttal to an argument that flusters me. I am not trying to disprove or invalidate Pro-Life arguments or say which side is right.
So, what's this topic about, then, you ask? It has very little to do with abortion, actually. The only reason I mention it is because the argument stems from it and I believe there's a strong correlation between the points. So, I'm going to respond to the quote as necessary.
Yes, there is, indeed, a high demand for adoption in this country. But there is also a high supply. Good, you'd say, right? Wrong. Very, very bad. In fact, it's an outright abomination. The demand has nothing to do with the supply and the supply has nothing to do with the demand; both are high because of the adoption agencies.
"What do you mean?"
You see, when adopting a child, certain information is denied to you. Mediocre complaint, yes? But what if it's the medical history that is denied to you? Often, such information will be denied, limited and even falsified.
As such, adopting a child will mean that you don't know of any preexisting terminal illnesses, family disease, facts about the parents or anything of that nature. With such limited information, can you really care for that child?
Of course not. Some time ago, my aunt adopted a child and I believe she had him for about six months; became very attached to him. And one day, without any kind of warning, the child died.
Later, my aunt found out that the child was a crack baby (the mother was using crack while pregnant with the child) and this information was not given to my aunt.
With such a weak flow of information, people aren't adopting. How do you know the child isn't a pyromaniac or homicidal? Perhaps the father was a convicted serial killer of some unknown mental illness and the genes have passed down to his child.
The excuse here is that there is a "right to privacy" in matters such as this, but that is a mere excuse used to justify a grandeur goal.
Did you know that 42% of children in foster care are black? Do you know why?
Because of racism as a byproduct of greed. Lets say for a moment that I want to adopt a black child (ignore the fact that I'm eighteen and still in school.) My credentials check out perfectly, but I cannot adopt that child because he is black and I am white.
It turns out that the National Association of Black Social Workers has condemned white adoption of black orphans. So, my dream of being called Dr. Drummond is forever dashed and do you know why?
To "preserve the heritage of the child". According to NABSW, a black child will not be able to adapt to growing up in a white family. Despite the fact that studies show the contrary (click here for more details), they stand by this affirmation. Instead of allowing these children to have a loving family, they suppress their ability to have stable lifestyle with funny colored people all around them.
If anything, mixed families would allow for greater diversification and balance to the racial pendulum and lead to a common ground. Which means that they're furthering a progressive cycle of discrimination and distinction between races.
But as you guessed, it has nothing to do with a preservation of heritage. That is merely an excuse much like it is with the issue of medical history. It all comes down to money. You see, adoption agencies don't get their money from a child being adopted; they get their money from children being in their custody.
So, because some fat cats want to buy a new corvette, they make thousands of children suffer and narrow their chances at a future every day.
Pretty crooked, eh?
We're going to move beyond the obvious flaws in this statement and cover the actual process of adoption. It should be noted before I even begin this article that I am not affiliated with a Pro-Life or Pro-Choice standing. I am politically neutral of this debate, but this article serves as a rebuttal to an argument that flusters me. I am not trying to disprove or invalidate Pro-Life arguments or say which side is right.
So, what's this topic about, then, you ask? It has very little to do with abortion, actually. The only reason I mention it is because the argument stems from it and I believe there's a strong correlation between the points. So, I'm going to respond to the quote as necessary.
Yes, there is, indeed, a high demand for adoption in this country. But there is also a high supply. Good, you'd say, right? Wrong. Very, very bad. In fact, it's an outright abomination. The demand has nothing to do with the supply and the supply has nothing to do with the demand; both are high because of the adoption agencies.
"What do you mean?"
You see, when adopting a child, certain information is denied to you. Mediocre complaint, yes? But what if it's the medical history that is denied to you? Often, such information will be denied, limited and even falsified.
As such, adopting a child will mean that you don't know of any preexisting terminal illnesses, family disease, facts about the parents or anything of that nature. With such limited information, can you really care for that child?
Of course not. Some time ago, my aunt adopted a child and I believe she had him for about six months; became very attached to him. And one day, without any kind of warning, the child died.
Later, my aunt found out that the child was a crack baby (the mother was using crack while pregnant with the child) and this information was not given to my aunt.
With such a weak flow of information, people aren't adopting. How do you know the child isn't a pyromaniac or homicidal? Perhaps the father was a convicted serial killer of some unknown mental illness and the genes have passed down to his child.
The excuse here is that there is a "right to privacy" in matters such as this, but that is a mere excuse used to justify a grandeur goal.
Did you know that 42% of children in foster care are black? Do you know why?
Because of racism as a byproduct of greed. Lets say for a moment that I want to adopt a black child (ignore the fact that I'm eighteen and still in school.) My credentials check out perfectly, but I cannot adopt that child because he is black and I am white.
It turns out that the National Association of Black Social Workers has condemned white adoption of black orphans. So, my dream of being called Dr. Drummond is forever dashed and do you know why?
To "preserve the heritage of the child". According to NABSW, a black child will not be able to adapt to growing up in a white family. Despite the fact that studies show the contrary (click here for more details), they stand by this affirmation. Instead of allowing these children to have a loving family, they suppress their ability to have stable lifestyle with funny colored people all around them.
If anything, mixed families would allow for greater diversification and balance to the racial pendulum and lead to a common ground. Which means that they're furthering a progressive cycle of discrimination and distinction between races.
But as you guessed, it has nothing to do with a preservation of heritage. That is merely an excuse much like it is with the issue of medical history. It all comes down to money. You see, adoption agencies don't get their money from a child being adopted; they get their money from children being in their custody.
So, because some fat cats want to buy a new corvette, they make thousands of children suffer and narrow their chances at a future every day.
Pretty crooked, eh?
RSS Feed
